Home · Book Reports · 2019 · Education and the Social Order

designates my notes. / designates important.

Thoughts

This work is very adjacent to Russell’s other work from the year before: Scientific Outlook. There is also a lot that you can easily draw lines to A Brave New World, even if this was basically published at the same time. It bears repeating that Russell and Aldous Huxley were reasonably close friends and definitely ran in the same oligarchical circles.

Similar to Scientific Outlook and Propaganda, this book does not mince words and is more than jarring at times. For example, here are some very clear statements on transforming (read: destroying) families:

The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

The major premise of the book is that there are two types of education: one produces citizens while the other produces individuals. Citizens are seen as dogmatic while individuals are more like scientists. Russell is very clear that he feels states should be built on science and not promote a citizen type education but then contradicts himself by saying certain individuals should be given a ’license to think’. So, if we read between the lines, what I think, and further reading will reveal this is in fact the case, what Russell actually wants is citizen type education for most and individual/scientist education for a small ruling class that has his ’license to think’ (read: control).

He states, while give no reason, that civilization is in some kind of jeopardy and that is why we need a ruling class that can eventually build a world state.

As much criticism as I have for this book, there is a diamond in the rough here and there. Russell argues that compulsory education kills natural curiosity and that the same can be said about music, art, and literature. I agree that too much instruction kills the innate desire to learn, but I am not sure about music, art, and literature having the same effect unless he means that they are distractions.

He then falls right back into his totalitarian ways stating that education will need to remain mostly compulsory if we are to train next generation to fit in and do the required work. This I disagree with for the most part. If children were raised in a way that exposed them to the importance of the plethora of career paths, they would likely follow one without coercion. Russell keeps fear-mongering by saying compulsory education is the only thing staving off widespread starvation. Again, no actual reasons are given to support this position.

There is an exploration that argues that intelligence is inherited and how we could develop tests to figure out how to produce more intelligence children. This comes as no surprise since Russell was a eugenicist. Interestingly he seemingly out of nowhere mentions the superior Jewish IQ.

Moving on from intelligence, Russell argues that emotions are more effective at controlling people than rules and that children should be given the appropriate amounts of safety and freedom, while decreasing the former as the later increases. This runs completely counter to what we see today with the rise of safe spaces. Again, I agree safety should be given less importance (within reason) over freedom. That said, his argument is actually for the safe space world we see today. Russell is very good at double-talk. Consider the emotional outbursts we have seen over the last few years on universities around the country. This is clearly an example of controlling people through their emotions.

Further he argues that we should tolerate children calling adults fools and allow real argument between adults and children on taboo topics like sex, religion, or politics. I think religion and politics shouldn’t be taboo to civilized debate, when it comes to adults or children, but discussing sex with children is taboo and that conversation should come from the parents. Again, we see these exact kinds of debates with the current conflicts in teaching LGBT topics to ever younger children.

This leads perfectly into the next topic Russell tackles, is home or school more important? He dismisses without argument (I’m noticing a trend…) that homeschooling is no long sufficient and children should attend day School from age 6 until 13-14. He does make some claims that might be at least adjacent to his schooling claim. One is that children should not be kept cooped up in urban houses/apartments, that farms are OK if in the city, and that school offers a way for the children (and parents) to get away. Keep this idea of parents and children “getting away” from one another in mind.

Russell asks: what would happen if the state took and raised all children? He concludes that since men are often motivated to work by their families, without families they would stop working. Would man/woman relationships become more frivolous? Would men become more tame, thinking of the good of the world instead of the good of their child?

Perhaps, if it could be freed from the possessive taint which it must have while it is associated with actual physical parenthood, the world might lose some of its fierceness, and men might come to wish well to the generality of mankind.

We can easily see the modern answers to these questions. There is an increase in childlessness (in the west) and an increase in crime (possibly not per capita), regional war, and drug use. We also the rise in social/communism acceptance in the USA; a natural consequence of the erosion of families.

Russell then admits that communists need to remove private property for the same reason: men want to provide for their families.

An interesting claim is made that prep schools like Eton, with its spartan demeanor and all-boys population, breed contempt for women and this leads to the creation of homosexuals. While this isn’t explored more, it gives me pause when I look at the world today and the kinds of “leaders” that have brought it about.

School and society at large are compared to large and small herds. Within each herd there are pressures of bullying and teasing the purpose of which is to enforce social norms. These norms are much easier to imprint (obviously) in the younger herd. If the adults step in and use force to discipline the bigger boys, the bigger boys will use force on the smaller boys. They are merely mirroring what they see in the adults. If the adults do not step in, the bigger boys will still likely use force on the smaller boys. There needs to be a proper balance to teach them, through example, to be civilized. This is easier at the more ‘proper’ schools (though not a sure thing) as the boys are, by their home life, often more cultured to begin with.

Russell touches on what education should be and in his opinion it is wrong to teach that the mind and body are separate. He asks reasonable questions like, should university teach something useful (as in career/technical training) or should university focus on creating well-rounded and cultured gentlemen? I am not sure why it can’t be both, but I do see some large hurdles to overcome in the modern age. One non-trivial example would be, how can we expect to begin to culture a person at the age of 18? They are well past their formative years and it would be a tall order to completely turn around some of these feral, for lack of a better word, children.

He concludes that education should focus on what is useful and/or pragmatic. Remembering dates is almost useless, learning how to look them up is not so. I think this has much merit. Engineering students are often taught to never memorize what you can look up. This is seen in old adages like: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

Russell contends that there is too much stress on individual tests (SAT, MCAT) for success. I again must agree. Even more so in the modern world where it seems children are taught to pass tests and not actually learn anything.

Lastly he believes, and once again I agree, that there is too much instruction and too long of lessons. Generally speaking it would be better to have shorter hours. This will lead to greater retention because the students are actually interested rather than forced. We can see this is the case today, and have know for quite some time. You are better off studying for 30 minutes every day (3.5 hours per week) than to cram once a week for 5 hours.

This is true for both intellectual pursuits as well as physical (learning an instrument for example). It is harder to burn out, easier to focus, and the interval training leads to more time to assimilate data between sessions. I, personally, can not speak any higher of this kind of training. You can test it yourself very easily. Read for 30-60 minutes each day until you finish a (educational) book. You will have a very good recall for what you read. Now sit down and read a similar length book in one sitting. Your recall will be abysmal.

Russell, as usual, minces no words when espousing his view on religion. Religion is bad and no intelligent men are religious.

Owing to the identification of religion with virtue, together with the fact that the most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where the teaching of evolution has been made illegal.

He believes that intelligent children will not be allowed to question religion and thus they will be prevented from thinking. Subsequently they will give up thinking altogether.

Interestingly I do recall reading many times over that a great many scientists are in fact religious. This is clearly the case when we look at historical science figures. Even the much lauded Newton wrote extensively on religious topics. In my opinion, once you learn enough to know how little you actually know, the concept of religion and God become much more reasonable. The mind so sure of itself with its atheist position is not open.

There are a few straw man arguments where he claims that religious people only do what they do because of religion. A man (in a story) gave up Christianity and immediately raped his housemaid because there was now nothing to stop him. This seems far fetched to say the least. I see no reason to exclude religious teaching from pragmatic social morals in the same way I don’t think the teaching of evolution should be banned, but it should be taught with all its flaws.

The book then takes a rather extreme turn in chapter 9. It goes on about infantile sex and infantile masturbation. It makes references to Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Somoa which is a vile work that has been thoroughly discredited. Honestly anyone that uses Mead in their argument loses practically all my respect.

The goal, it seems, of this chapter is the transformation (read: destruction) of the family and the ushering in of the values laid out in The Communist Manifesto.

I will let it speak for itself.

Either men must become as virtuous as women, as the pioneers of feminism hoped, or women must be allowed to be as unvirtuous as men, as the feminists of our generation tend to urge.

On transforming families and communism:

The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

The next target is that nation state. In short: nationalism bad; globalism good. To spread the globalist ideal is simple; history books should be written by the League of Nations. This would almost be funny if we didn’t see functionally this happening now with supranational entities like the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations (the direct successor to the League of Nations).

There is one point that I do tend to agree with though, that patriotism shields citizens from understanding invasions. Most times this is framed (even to this day) as an us versus them mentality where both sides think they are the “us”. In reality it is almost always economic reasons (resources) that lead to conflict. I think that Thomas Jefferson has laid out the most reasonable way to prevent as much war as possible:

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

It seems Russell would actually agree with this because he clearly values cooperation over competition.

The book ends interestingly by looking at education and propaganda. He mentions hot music, in the context of social groups like Churches, is propaganda that is meant to stir an emotional response. He doesn’t go as far as Plato (Republic in calling to ban music, but the sentiment feels similar to me. Honestly, I think Russell would rather harness the power of music than suppress it.

I agree with much of what is said, but, again, it has little to do with eduction aside from a few mention on how to use education to create resistance to propaganda.

To be critical of propaganda, to have what is called in America ‘sales resistance’, is highly desirable, and is not to be achieved by remoteness from propaganda, any more than immunity from measles is achieved by remoteness from measles. It is achieved by experiencing propaganda and discovering that it is often misleading.

Young people ought, at some stage in their education, to be taught political judgement, by listening to eloquence known in advance to be misleading, by reading partisan statements about past events and trying to infer what really happened, and so on. All this is the opposite of propaganda; it is the technique for rendering men immune to propaganda.

All the world’s problems, according to Russell, are because men are educated ‘incorrectly’. With a more scientific, a more international, education, everything would be better. To achieve this an international committee should govern education.

There have been times when competition in the form of war was advantageous to the victors. Those times are past. It is obvious now, to every thinking person, that every nation would be happier if all armed forces everywhere were dis- banded and all disputes between nations were settled by an international tribunal and all tariffs were abolished and all men could move freely from one country to another. Science has so altered our technique as to make the world one economic unit.

Clearly Russell’s curriculum is anti-propaganda, and not merely another side of propaganda. Right?

Further Reading

Exceptional Excepts

Both intelligence and sympathy, therefore, tend to be less repressed by an education hostile to the status quo than by one which is friendly to it.

This conflict between the scientific spirit and the governmental use of science is likely ultimately to bring scientific progress to a stand- still, since scientific technique will be increasingly used to instil orthodoxy and credulity. If this is not to happen, it will be necessary thatboys showing a certain degree of aptitude for science shall be exempted from the usual training in citizenship, and given a licence to think.

international cohesion, and a sense of the whole human race as one co-operative unit, is becoming increasingly necessary if our scientific civilisation is to survive. I think this survival will demand, as a minimum condition, the establishment of a world State and the subsequent institution of a world-wide system of education designed to produce loyalty to the world State. No doubt such a system of education will entail, at any rate for a century or two, certain crudities which will militate against the development of the individual. But if the alternative is chaos and the death of civilisation, the price will be worth paying.

Perhaps, if it could be freed from the possessive taint which it must have while it is associated with actual physical parenthood, the world might lose some of its fierceness, and men might come to wish well to the generality of mankind.

Owing to the identification of religion with virtue, together with the fact that the most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where the teaching of evolution has been made illegal.

Most of them [schoolmasters] would think the psychology of infantile sex a nasty subject, concerning which it is well to be ignorant.

Either men must become as virtuous as women, as the pioneers of feminism hoped, or women must be allowed to be as unvirtuous as men, as the feminists of our generation tend to urge.

The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

History ought to be taught in exactly the same way in all countries of the world, and history text-books ought to be drawn up by the League of Nations, with an assistant from the United States, and another from Soviet Russia. History should be world history rather than national history, and should emphasise matters of cultural importance rather than wars.

Patriotism in its more militant forms is intimately bound up with money. The armed forces of the State can be, and are, employed for the enrichment of its citizens.

I think it was as Russians rather than as Marxists that the Thirty-Fifth All Russian Conference on Pre-School Education adopted the following resolution: ‘Music should penetrate completely the life of the child. There should be music during work, music during play, and music during holidays. The teacher should take into consideration the personal creativeness of the child and by organising an orchestra and collective singing should provide him with the necessary musical experiences.’

Progressive educators in the West have, I think, been inclined to gener- ate self-importance in the child, and to let him feel himself a little aristocrat whom adults must serve. This leads him to grow up an anarchist, impatient of the restraints of social life.

From the standpoint of politics (in the widest sense) I think our verdict must be different. Communism offers a solution of the difficult problem of the family and sex-equality – a solution which we may dislike, but which does, at any rate, provide a possible issue. It gives children an education from which the anti-social idea of competition has been almost entirely eliminated. It creates an economic system which appears to be the only practicable alternative to one of masters and slaves. It destroys that separation of the school from life which the school owes to its monkish origin, and owing to which the intellectual, in the West, is becoming an increasingly useless member of society. It offers to young men and women a hope which is not chimerical and an activity in the usefulness of which they feel no doubt. And if it conquers the world, as it may do, it will solve most of the major evils of our time. On these grounds, in spite of reservations,it deserves support.

Universal education has increased immeasurably the opportunities of propaganda. Not only is education itself everywhere propagandist, but the power of reading makes the whole population susceptible to the influence of the Press. This was the principal reason why the late war was more bitter than previous wars. People who had learnt to read, but had learnt nothing else, could be influenced by stories of atrocities, whereas in former times most people had either no education or a good deal, and were in either case comparatively immune.

Indirect propaganda consists in arousing emotions, in themselves unconnected with the object, in circumstances which establish an association with the object. This is the function of Church music, and of all music which is used in connection with some social group.

Young people ought, at some stage in their education, to be taught political judgement, by listening to eloquence known in advance to be misleading, by reading partisan statements about past events and trying to infer what really happened, and so on. All this is the opposite of propaganda; it is the technique for rendering men immune to propaganda.

The disharmony between nations is encouraged by education in the present day, and could be brought to an end by the introduction of internationalist propaganda in schools. This, however, is hardly possible without a previous victory of political internationalism. Education can consolidate political achievements, but is not likely to cause them so long as it is controlled by national States.

There have been times when competition in the form of war was advantageous to the victors. Those times are past. It is obvious now, to every thinking person, that every nation would be happier if all armed forces everywhere were dis- banded and all disputes between nations were settled by an international tribunal and all tariffs were abolished and all men could move freely from one country to another. Science has so altered our technique as to make the world one economic unit.

Table of Contents

• 01: THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS THE CITIZEN
• 02: THE NEGATIVE THEORY OF EDUCATION
• 03: EDUCATION AND HEREDITY
• 04: EMOTION AND DISCIPLINE
• 05: HOME VERSUS SCHOOL
• 06: ARISTOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, AND BUREAUCRATS
• 07: THE HERD IN EDUCATION
• 08: RELIGION IN EDUCATION
• 09: SEX IN EDUCATION
• 10: PATRIOTISM IN EDUCATION
• 11: CLASS-FEELING IN EDUCATION
• 12: COMPETITION IN EDUCATION
• 13: EDUCATION UNDER COMMUNISM
• 14: EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
• 15: PROPAGANDA IN EDUCATION
• 16: THE RECONCILIATION OF INDIVIDUALITY AND CITIZENSHIP

• Actual pages numbers.

• 2010 edition.

· 01: THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS THE CITIZEN

page 1:

• there is one great temperamental cleavage which goes deeper than any of the other controversies, and that is the cleavage between those who consider education primarily in relation to the individual psyche, and those who consider it in relation to the community.

page 4:

• The fundamental characteristic of the citizen is that he co-operates

• Citizens as conceived by governments are persons who admire the status quo and are prepared to exert them- selves for its preservation. Oddly enough, while all governments aim at producing men of this type to the exclusion of all other types, their heroes in the past are of exactly the sort that they aim at preventing in the present.

page 8:

• education in the modern world tends to be a reactionary force, supporting the government when it is conservative, and opposing it when it is progressive.

• Maybe in 1932…

• What is emphasised most of all is patriotism in a somewhat militant form

page 9:

• Both intelligence and sympathy, therefore, tend to be less repressed by an education hostile to the status quo than by one which is friendly to it.

page 10:

• Science has developed a certain technique, which is essentially a technique of discovery, that is to say, of change. The scientific frame of mind is, broadly speaking, that which facilitates discovery, not that which causes a man to have an unwavering belief in the present tenets of science. A well-educated citizen is likely to be incapable of discovery, since he will respect his elders and betters, reverence the great men of the past generation, and look with horror upon all subversive doctrines. The modern State, which is built upon science, is therefore in a difficulty.

page 11:

• This conflict between the scientific spirit and the governmental use of science is likely ultimately to bring scientific progress to a stand- still, since scientific technique will be increasingly used to instil orthodoxy and credulity. If this is not to happen, it will be necessary thatboys showing a certain degree of aptitude for science shall be exempted from the usual training in citizenship, and given a licence to think.

page 13:

• …the whole educational machine in America, from the public schools to the Universities, is concerned to emphasise citizenship, and to impress its duties upon the youthful mind. In spite of this educational effort, the average American, owing either to the pioneering tradition or to the fact that his recent ancestors were Europeans, does not have that instinctive sense of the community which exists in the older countries of Europe. And unless he acquires itthere is a danger that the whole industrial system may break down.

• Always with the fear-mongering.

page 14:

• international cohesion, and a sense of the whole human race as one co-operative unit, is becoming increasingly necessary if our scientific civilisation is to survive. I think this survival will demand, as a minimum condition, the establishment of a world State and the subsequent institution of a world-wide system of education designed to produce loyalty to the world State. No doubt such a system of education will entail, at any rate for a century or two, certain crudities which will militate against the development of the individual. But if the alternative is chaos and the death of civilisation, the price will be worth paying.

• Fear-mongering in extremis. “The death of civilization.” Oh my!

• I think, nevertheless, that the most vital need of the near future will be the cultivation of a vivid sense of citizenship of the world. When once the world as a single economic and political unit has become secure, it will be possible for individual culture to revive. But until that time our whole civilisation remains in jeopardy. Considered sub specie aeternitatis,the education of the individual is to my mind a finer thing than the education of the citizen; but considered politically, in relation to the needs of the time, the education of the citizen must, I fear, take the first place.

· 02: THE NEGATIVE THEORY OF EDUCATION

page 18:

• children who are forced to learn acquire a loathing for knowledge. When they think, they do not think spontaneously in the way in which they run or jump or shout: they think with a view to pleasing some adult, and there- fore with an attempt at correctness rather than from natural curiosity. The killing of spontaneity is especially disastrous in artistic directions. Children who are taught literature or painting or music to excess, or with a view to correctness rather than to self-expression, become progressively less interested in the aesthetic side of life. Even a boy’s interest in mechanical devices can be killed by too much instruction. If you teach a boy the principle of the common pump in lesson-time, he will try to avoid acquiring the knowledge you are trying to impart, whereas if you have a pump in your back yard and forbid him to touch it he will spend all his leisure studying it. A great many of these troubles are avoided by making lessons voluntary. There is no longer friction between teacher and pupil, and in a fairly large proportion of cases the pupils consider the knowledge imparted by the teacher worth having. Their initiative is not destroyed, because it is by their own choice that they learn, and they do not accumulate masses of undigested hate to lie festering in the unconscious throughout the rest of life.

• This I can agree with.

page 23:

• The capacity for consistent self-direction is one of the most valuable that a human being can possess.

· 03: EDUCATION AND HEREDITY

· 04: EMOTION AND DISCIPLINE

page 36:

• By a suitable distribution of rewards and punishments, it is possible to control a very large part of overt behaviour.

page 37:

• Those who have been taught from an early age to fear the displeasure of their group as the worst of misfortunes will die on the battlefield, in a war of which they understand nothing, rather than suffer the contempt of fools. The English public schools have carried this system to perfection, and have largely sterilised intelligence by making it cringe before the herd. This is what is called making a boy manly.

• It is therefore necessary to pay more attention to emotion, as opposed to overt behaviour, than is done by those who advocate conditioning as alone sufficient in the training of character.

page 40:

• There should be no enforced respect for grown- ups, who should allow themselves to be called fools whenever children wish to call them so. We cannot prevent our children from thinking us fools by merely forbidding them to utter their thoughts; in fact, they are more likely to think ill of us if they dare not say so. Children should not be forbidden to swear – not because it is desirable that they should swear, but because it is desirable that they should think that it does not matter whether they do or not, since this is a true proposition. They should be free entirely from the sex taboo, and not checked when their conversation seems to inhibited adults to be indecent. If they express opinions on religion or politics or morals, they may be met with argument, provided it is genuine argument, but not if it is really dogma: the adult may, and should, suggest considerations to them, but should not impose conclusions.

· 05: HOME VERSUS SCHOOL

• Dismisses, with no actual argument, that homeschooling is insufficient at educating children.

• School from age 6 to 13-14.

page 45:

• I have no doubt in my own mind that the ideal school is better than the ideal home, at any rate the ideal urban home, because it allows more light and air, more freedom of movement, and more companionship of contemporaries. But it by no means follows that the actual school will be better than the actual home.

page 47:

• The Roman Catholic Church holds that a priest can turn a piece of bread into the Body and Blood of Christ by talking Latin to it; the British State holds that the Empire is a boon to subject nations. In order to cause young people to believe such propositions, it is necessary to keep them stupid, and to teach them not to use their powers of reasoning in certain directions.

page 48:

• We have not the data to enable us to judge what men and women would be like if this sentiment [children removed from parents and raised by the state] were removed, but we may safely conjecture that they would be greatly changed. It is probable that most women would feel little desire for children in such circumstances, and that child-bearing would have to become a paid profession, adopted as a branch of the civil service. It is probable that the relations of men and women would grow trivial, and that serious conjugal affection would become rare. It is probable that men would become less inclined to work hard, since at present, in middle life, the chief incentive of many men is desire to provide for their families. This is proved by the heavy payments men make for life insurance, which show that they care what happens to their families after they are dead. It may be doubted whether, in a world where the family did not exist, ordinary men would concern them- selves with events occurring after their death. It is possible that a kind of paralysis would descend upon the community, such as descends upon a hive of bees when the queen is removed.

• The feelings of parents for their children are intensely individualistic and competitive; many men who,while they are childless, are full of public spirit become absorbed in the welfare of their own family as soon as they become fathers. The passion for private property is largely bound up with the family, and communists, from Plato down- wards, are right in thinking that their economic system demands the cessation of private property in children.

page 49:

• Perhaps, if it could be freed from the possessive taint which it must have while it is associated with actual physical parenthood, the world might lose some of its fierceness, and men might come to wish well to the generality of mankind.

· 06: ARISTOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, AND BUREAUCRATS

page 54:

• The psychological defects of the preparatory and public schools are due in the main to two causes, the isolation of the boys from female companionship, and the conventional code of morals. The younger boys at first inevitably miss the affection of mothers and older sisters and even nurses; in these circum- stances their mothers often become objects of secret longing and worship, all the more intense because it is de rigueur to profess contempt for all women. After puberty they tend to practise masturbation or homosexuality or both, and many of them believe that in so doing they are being sinful.

· 07: THE HERD IN EDUCATION

page 59:

• One of the most important factors in the formation of character is the influence of the herd upon the individual during child- hood and youth.

page 67:

• those who have been used to freedom will feel the chains of slavery more irksome than those who have been slaves from birth. Such, at least, is the argument which I have frequently heard advanced by liberal-minded parents in favour of an illiberal education for their children.

· 08: RELIGION IN EDUCATION

page 79:

• Owing to the identification of religion with virtue, together with the fact that the most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where the teaching of evolution has been made illegal.

· 09: SEX IN EDUCATION

page 82:

• in advocating any kind of sex freedom, it is always necessary to remember that the freedom which will be taken is likely to exceed that which is advocated.

• Why does this need advocated in the first place? Live and let live?

• Most of them [schoolmasters] would think the psychology of infantile sex a nasty subject, concerning which it is well to be ignorant.

page 83:

• Masturbation is nearly universal among very young children,

• What is ‘very young?’

page 87:

• Perhaps a time will come when the psychological disorders caused in adolescence by our present code will be taken so seriously that boys and girls will be allowed the kind of freedom at present allowed in Samoa and various other Pacific islands.

• Reference to Margarette Mead’s lies: Growing Up In Samoa.

• I am sure that university life would be better, both intellectually and morally, if most university students had temporary childless marriages. This would afford a solution of the sexual urge neither restless nor surreptitious, neither mercenary nor casual, and of such a nature that it need not take up time which ought to be given to work.

page 88:

-Either men must become as virtuous as women, as the pioneers of feminism hoped, or women must be allowed to be as unvirtuous as men, as the feminists of our generation tend to urge.

page 89:

• The family is a very deeply rooted institution, which men will not willingly see transformed. From this confusion there seems only one clear issue, which is that the place of the father should be taken by the State – a system which is easily possible under Communism, but not so easy to adapt to the institutions of private property and inheritance.

• I have little doubt that the solution will be found in the greatly diminishing importance of the father and an increasing tendency for children to be supported by the State rather than by their fathers. I am not at all sure that this will be a good thing. The sentiment of paternity, and the feeling of sons towards their fathers, have been profoundly important elements in the history of civilisation, and I do not profess to know what civilisation will be like without these elements. But whether for good or evil, the importance of the State in relation to children seems bound to increase, while the importance of the father will correspondingly diminish.

· 10: PATRIOTISM IN EDUCATION

page 92:

• The Rothschild family co-operated owing to ties of blood. They did not need formal articles of incorporation, because they could trust each other, and a great part of their success was due to the fact that there was a Rothschild in every important financial centre in Europe.

page 97:

• For this willingness of the ordinary citizen to become an unconscious accomplice in murder for the sake of robbery, education is chiefly to blame. There are those who blame the Press, but in this I think they are mistaken. The Press is such as the public demands, and the public demands bad newspapers because it has been badly educated.

• As if education and the press weren’t two sides to the same coin. The press is merely adult education.

• Nationalism is undoubtedly the most dangerous vice of our time – far more dangerous than drunkenness, or drugs, or commercial dishonesty, or any of the other vices against which a conventional moral education is directed.

• I disagree. ‘Commercial dishonesty’ causes far more damage than nationalism. Heck, even the examples he gave earlier about goldmines and oil fields being taken by invasion are commercial ends.

• owing to nationalism, the continuance of a civilised way of life is in jeopardy.

• Again, it seems to me civilization is in jeopardy because of insatiable economic (and cultural) control by a select few. Nationalism is not synonymous with war and invasion; it is simply the hijacked vehicle the oligarchy uses to secure more control, first through invasion and then through immigration.

page 98:

• History ought to be taught in exactly the same way in all countries of the world, and history text-books ought to be drawn up by the League of Nations, with an assistant from the United States, and another from Soviet Russia. History should be world history rather than national history, and should emphasise matters of cultural importance rather than wars.

page 100:

• Patriotism in its more militant forms is intimately bound up with money. The armed forces of the State can be, and are, employed for the enrichment of its citizens.

• Select few citizens.

· 11: CLASS-FEELING IN EDUCATION

· 12: COMPETITION IN EDUCATION

page 114:

• it has naturally been the endeavour of capitalists, while combining themselves, to hinder combinations as much as they could where their employees were concerned. Their motto has been: ‘United we stand; divided they fall.’ Free competition has thus been preserved as a Great Ideal in all provinces of human life, except in the activities of industrial magnates. Where the industrial magnates are concerned, the competition is national, and therefore takes the form of encouraging patriotism.

page 115:

• The first thing the average educator sets to work to kill in the young is imagination.

page 117:

• Pupils should, of course, write as well as read, but what they write should not be criticised, nor should they be shown how, in the teacher’s opinion, they might have written it better. So far as writing is concerned, there should be no teaching.

page 118:

• It will be found that more is learnt in the shorter hours of voluntary lessons than in the longer times of enforced and inattentive boredom.

page 120:

• Consider the situation of an intelligent boy from a poor home, whose interests are almost wholly intellectual, but whose companions care nothing for books. If he succeeds in reaching the university, he may hope to make congenial friends and spend his life in congenial work; if not, he is doomed not only to poverty but to mental solitude.

page 125:

• Competition is not only bad as an educational fact, but also as an ideal to be held before the young. What the world now needs is not competition but organisation and co-operation;

· 13: EDUCATION UNDER COMMUNISM

page 129:

• Pinkevitch recognises that ‘from the point of view of character formation infancy and childhood are indisputably the most important periods of life’.He holds that it would be desirable if infants could be cared for in institutions, not only for their own sakes, but also in order ‘to realise completely the socialistic State in which woman, liberated from petty, dulling, and unproductive toil, takes her place side by side with man’. Both in infancy and in childhood he thinks the school a better influence than the family.

page 130:

• Pinkevitch does not tell, in as much detail as could be wished, exactly what labour children perform, and how many hours of the curriculum are occupied by it. ‘Regular occupations in actual production in factory or mill,’ he says, ‘are a part of the manual work of the school in the sense that they are closely articulated with the teaching programme.’ In rural districts work on farms takes the place of work in factories. As to this, Julian Huxley says truly:(1 A Scientist Among the Soviets, p. 102.)

• This association of rural schools with farms has much more to be said for it than that of urban schools with factories. For agriculture is a broad subject, while each factory deals only with one specialised branch of industry; agriculture is more nearly coterminous with country life than industry with life in the city. And the dovetailing of the school with the farm as an integral part of a single institution is good from the educational point of view.

page 132:

• I think it was as Russians rather than as Marxists that the Thirty-Fifth All Russian Conference on Pre-School Education adopted the following resolution: ‘Music should penetrate completely the life of the child. There should be music during work, music during play, and music during holidays. The teacher should take into consideration the personal creativeness of the child and by organising an orchestra and collective singing should provide him with the necessary musical experiences.’

page 133:

• the Soviet attitude on sex education is far from radical. ‘The role of the teacher and parent’, says Pinkevitch, ‘is to safeguard the child against undue stimulation of the sex interest.’

• ‘If questions of sex are not singled out for separate and special emphasis, the attention of children and adolescents will not be fixed upon them.’

page 136:

• A more serious question, as regards the future, is the virtual abolition of the family. It is to be expected that, when funds permit, the Soviet Government will gradually cause more and more children to be educated wholly in institutions, and to have little or no contact with their parents. The advantages and dis- advantages of this system have been considered in an earlier chapter, and I shall not repeat them, but for good or evil this is probably the most important feature in fully developed communist education.

page 137:

• Progressive educators in the West have, I think, been inclined to gener- ate self-importance in the child, and to let him feel himself a little aristocrat whom adults must serve. This leads him to grow up an anarchist, impatient of the restraints of social life.

page 144:

• From the standpoint of politics (in the widest sense) I think our verdict must be different. Communism offers a solution of the difficult problem of the family and sex-equality – a solution which we may dislike, but which does, at any rate, provide a possible issue. It gives children an education from which the anti-social idea of competition has been almost entirely eliminated. It creates an economic system which appears to be the only practicable alternative to one of masters and slaves. It destroys that separation of the school from life which the school owes to its monkish origin, and owing to which the intellectual, in the West, is becoming an increasingly useless member of society. It offers to young men and women a hope which is not chimerical and an activity in the usefulness of which they feel no doubt. And if it conquers the world, as it may do, it will solve most of the major evils of our time. On these grounds, in spite of reservations,it deserves support.

· 14: EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS

· 15: PROPAGANDA IN EDUCATION

page 153:

• The question for the educator is not whether there shall be propaganda, but how much, how organised, and of what sort; also whether, at some stage during education, an attempt should be made to free boys and girls, as far as possible, from the influence of propaganda by teaching them methods of arriving at impartial judgements.

page 154:

• Socialism and communism have been built up entirely by propaganda, and but for patriotic propaganda the nations would not have endured the sacrifices demanded of them in the Great War.

• Universal education has increased immeasurably the opportunities of propaganda. Not only is education itself everywhere propagandist, but the power of reading makes the whole population susceptible to the influence of the Press. This was the principal reason why the late war was more bitter than previous wars. People who had learnt to read, but had learnt nothing else, could be influenced by stories of atrocities, whereas in former times most people had either no education or a good deal, and were in either case comparatively immune.

page 158:

• Indirect propaganda consists in arousing emotions, in themselves unconnected with the object, in circumstances which establish an association with the object. This is the function of Church music, and of all music which is used in connection with some social group.

page 161:

• To be critical of propaganda, to have what is called in America ‘sales resistance’, is highly desirable, and is not to be achieved by remoteness from propaganda, any more than immunity from measles is achieved by remoteness from measles. It is achieved by experiencing propaganda and discovering that it is often misleading.

page 163:

• Young people ought, at some stage in their education, to be taught political judgement, by listening to eloquence known in advance to be misleading, by reading partisan statements about past events and trying to infer what really happened, and so on. All this is the opposite of propaganda; it is the technique for rendering men immune to propaganda.

· 16: THE RECONCILIATION OF INDIVIDUALITY AND CITIZENSHIP

page 168:

• It is, of course, clear that there cannot be secure peace until Germany ceases to be punished for having been defeated in the war. And this will not happen until France ceases to dominate Europe.

• Interestingly (or predictably) he gets the first part right, but misses the true domination.

page 169:

• Holders of power, almost inevitably, desire their subjects to be emotional rather than rational, since this renders it easier to make those who are victims of an unjust social system contented with their lot.

page 173:

• In the sphere of education, the danger of the administrator arises through his love of classification and statistics.

page 176:

• The disharmony between nations is encouraged by education in the present day, and could be brought to an end by the introduction of internationalist propaganda in schools. This, however, is hardly possible without a previous victory of political internationalism. Education can consolidate political achievements, but is not likely to cause them so long as it is controlled by national States.

• There have been times when competition in the form of war was advantageous to the victors. Those times are past. It is obvious now, to every thinking person, that every nation would be happier if all armed forces everywhere were dis- banded and all disputes between nations were settled by an international tribunal and all tariffs were abolished and all men could move freely from one country to another. Science has so altered our technique as to make the world one economic unit.

page 177:

• The cure for our problem is to make men sane, and to make men sane they must be educated sanely.

• This reminds me of the ‘well adjusted’ argument for modern schooling. As if people are born insane or need adjusting.